Fright Night (1985) (However limited to 3000 Copies) - Page 9

I don't understand where you get the idea that the desire to make a "substantial" profit is somehow "new" or "different". What company doesn't want to increase its profits? I watched a documentary that said Louis B. Mayer was at one time the highest paid executive in the country. That tells me MGM had VERY "substantial" profits at that time. They didn't make movies to lose money, or make "unsubstantial" profits.

Also, unless you have access to Sony's and TT's books, how do you know how much profit (or loss) they make on BR releases? How do you know what the demand curve looks like (ie how do you know many more copies they'd sell at a lower price point) for a given release? What's your idea of a "substantial" or "justified" profit, and why should these companies share your thinking on the subject?

It really doesn't make sense to base a purchasing decision based on how much one thinks a company "will" or "should" profit from it. It's much more sensible to answer the simple question: Is this product worth (to yourself and ONLY yourself) the price being charged? Let THEM worry about how many people will answer "yes" or "no".

Big fan of Fright Night, but $30 is way to high.

I bought the Student Bodies/Jekyll & Hyde Together Again double feature pack put out by Legend for 13.49 from Amazon in July.

Fright Night should be $15-$19. TT is just gouging fans with the limited copies,high price combination.

9 pages now on price/availability.

How's it actually look and sound?

My copy came Saturday and I've watched it. It looks really good. It almost looks too clean. It makes me wonder that maybe there should be more/any grain visible. I never had the DVD. I upgraded from the LD.

The 3000 copies are gonna be worth more than their selling price in short order unless Sony suddenly decides to do a wide release. If this was just a gimmick to get the first 3000 folks to pay a premium, I'll be P'ed off. If not, I'll feel lucky to have a copy.

Fangtastic.

There's a very thin coating of grain and the focus is a bit soft (ah, vintage 'scope photography!), but it looks as good as I think it probably can.

When I say that after the 3000 sell, Image will get it- I don't mean they'll get the isolated score and booklet. They'll just get the same A/V encode and sell it for 12 bucks.
The Twilight Time one will still be the one to get.

Licenses have a very specific time limit, so if Image were to get it once Twilight Time was through with they'd probably have to wait 5 years. (7 years used to be the standard, but as sales have sagged so have the licensing terms.)

I don't give a tinker's cuss about business: I'm more concerned with the ongoing accessibility of cultural heritage artworks to all of society, which is under threat IMO.

Whether you care or refuse to acknowledge it or not, the studios have ALWAYS been businesses engaged in the business of making movies. That is, and has always been REALITY, and your personal choice not to buy doesn't change that reality.

I am concerned with this at well, but due to the risk of business a successful business model must be found. Sadly, most people do not care about said accessibility, so if you want it for yourself or your friends/family the burden is going to fall squarely on you. i.e. bite the bullet and buy it if you want it in the future.

There are different business models and none of them are any better or worse than others, they are just different ways of staying in business.

Model 1: press a small amount of copies (limit supply), announce this in advance (to create demand regardless of content), and finally charge more money compared to the norm. This is the model used by labels like Twilight Time, Code Red, and Scorpion Releasing.

Model 2: press a large amount of copies and attempt to sell all of those copies via all different types of retail outlets. This is what studios like Warner Bros and Fox do.

Model 3: a blend of the first two models, and is often employed by Criterion, Blue Underground, Synapse, and Media Blasters. Some other larger studios experiment with this occasionally as well but generally it is only a small subset of their business.

Upside/Downsides for consumers?

Model 1 = larger initial investment, but down the road the value of the item will frequently skyrocket up to 2x-5x its initial purchase price. The discs therefore are essentially worth more from this model, especially if they are no longer available in any modern format.

Model 2 = small initial investment, but down the road the value of the item is generally significantly lower than its initial purchase price. The discs are worth the least in this model

Model 3 = moderate initial investment, but down the road the value of the item is generally only a small amount below or sometimes the same as the initial investment. Rarely, there are cases when value can rise dramatically, but this is the minority of releases from this model.


So basically, with Twilight Time you are going to pay more now but in the future the movie will likely be worth much more. If it bothers you, buy two copies and sell the 2nd in a year or two - it will likely pay for the first and then some.

It depends on whether TT actually sells out and if they'll continue to offer it as long as copies are unsold.

Right now, there are at least 3 E-Bay sellers hawking this disc. One has 4 priced at $59.99, one has a single copy at the same price. A third has 3 copies for...you better sit down...$84.99.

The last auction has a "make offer" button on it. I wonder how low the guy would go if they all go unsold...

While I like the movie, I don't care to pay even what TT wants for it currently. If I miss out, I won't cry. If it doesn't sell out and they drop the price a bit, I may bite (no pun intended).

If it sells out at the current price, then I lose out. I won't lose sleep over it - unless Jerry moves into the recently vacated place next door to me, that is...

Warner Bros and Fox charge $20 for DVD-Rs.

Twilight Time charges $20 for actual, fully pressed DVDs and $30 for Blu-Rays.

They're not "charging more money compared to the norm" of the major studios running off DVD-R copies.


So that means you're entitled to $5-$10 Blu-Ray catalog discs then? This on-going argument here shocks me. This is a business, always has been, and always will be. If titles sell in a certain format, and there is demand, then studios will release more of them. If they don't, then they won't. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Most of the big studios started producing limited edition content on DVD several years ago and now it's happening on Blu-Ray.

It's a cold hard reality that retail sales of physical media are continuing to decline. Best Buy's sales numbers came out yesterday and they're down another 9% for physical media. That trend isn't going to change.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/decl...s-at-best-buy/

No matter how many emotional arguments you want to trot out there, it's a bottom line business and the numbers aren't in your favor.

The majority of Warner Bros' catalog can be had for $10-$15 on "fully pressed" Blu-ray on Amazon, $5-$10 on "fully pressed" DVD. This is compared to $20 DVD/$35-$40 Blu-ray respectively for Twilight Time. So comparitively, Twilight Time charges over double for "fully pressed" movies which is the near-entirety of each company's business.


DVD-R is an incredible miniscule part of WB's business and actually costs more than their regular DVDs because of the distribution model, which is only used for movies they cannot make enough money off their regular distro model with. But even in this case, Warner DVD-Rs are generally on sale for one reason or another in the $10-$15 range. While I definitely prefer DVDs to DVD-Rs, I'm not convinced a good quality DVD-R is unreliable. Less reliable, probably, but whether that will make a difference in my lifetime is another story. Yes, there have been brands of DVD-R that have rotted but there also have been pressed DVD that have rotted.

Either way, I far prefer pressed to burned, but tje majority of Warner's pressed is usually half the price of Twilight's pressed on either format. Bringing up Warner DVD-R is pointless as it is less than 1% of their business, while Twilight's $20 DVD/$35-$40 BD is 100% of its business.


Or yours, as you seem to fail to admit that Twilight charges more for their product Twilight does charge more, but as a result of their higher price and limited supply their discs will likely inherently be of greater value.

Is it a better deal to buy a $10 Blu-ray that likely will be worth $5 in two years vs. a $35 Blu-ray that likely will be worth $70 in two years? I guess it depends who you ask.

The above comment illustrates what's wrong with the way FRIGHT NIGHT is being handled.

Why in God's name should real movie fans be concerned about how much the value of their disc has increased in the following year?

When did this become the AUDIO VIDEO INVESTMENT FORUM?

I like movies. I don't give a rat's behind if my copy of Fright Night is worth 75 cents or 75 dollars next year. It's about THE MOVIE.

I own 490 shares of an Australian mining company. I AM concerned about what those shares will be worth next year. I don't really want bauxite ore. I want the money. In that case, it IS about the money.

It's sad to read speculation about what the discs will be worth. People talk about buying multiple copies and putting some on eBay to pay for their own copy.

That's what I meant when I spoke of this "corruption" of the hobby. This used to be about movies. Movie fans should just be able to enjoy movies. I don't care if it costs $30.00 but people who want to buy this movie should just be able to buy it. That's what home video is about. The arbitrary "Franklin Mint" style limited number is offensive. People shouldn't be denied a chance to own a movie because they were number 3001 in the order line. And others shouldn't be trying to profiteer from the fact that most people have no idea how to get this disc (yes, I know it's perfectly LEGAL...it's also mean-spirited).

It's all just very sad to see things going this way.

There's nothing wrong with it, it is just a different way of making a good profit that may be the only feasible way to see a quality release of this movie on Blu-ray at this specific point in time. A company with Twilight Time's size & release model general specializes in films that have a small cult following or are of some interest but probably not enough to warrant a large scale pressing. Films that previously may have been stuck in rights hell due to failing to have enough audience to make a significant profit. Combine the downturn of physical media sales plus a movie with a niche following and you have a very small audience you are marketing to. That means either press a limited amount to create demand or go DVD-R so you can simply MOD; only larger companies can take the risk of a large pressing of this type of movie, and likely they have other more popular movies to buffer that risk.


You inadvertently answered your own question. Real movie fans often have collections. Over time, collections can grow enormously. And though a DVD only costs $20, an enoromous amount of them does become a significant investment. And, since space is not unlimited often movies are bought, watched a few times, then flipped on ebay or whatnot.

Thus, say I see fright night available for purchase at $35 and a year from now want to dump it because either I grew bored of it or wanted to clear it out for something else instead. Predicting whether I will get back the money I bought it for (or more), or whether it will depreciate to $5, will greatly impact the likelihood of my parting $35 for it. While it is all about the movies, part of collecting also involves the fun of buying and selling, too, for some.



Well unless you plan on throwing away FRIGHT NIGHT after you watch it, you should give a rat's ass about its value. At some point you may want to sell it either for a different movie or just to get some cash and at that point 75 cents vs. 75 dollars will probably be a significant difference.


Your shares cost money. DVDs cost money. Both can be bought and sold by and for real money, and the value of both are shaped by various things. If you have 20 DVDs it is difficult to see that as an investment. If you have 2000, it is easier.


When anything costs $35 I think it is fair to assess what it will be worth. If it will be worth nothing in short order, buying the disc at $35 might be a bad move because you can just wait a short time and get it for nothing. If it will be worth $70, buying the disc at $35 is not a ripoff. Just like you wouldn't want to buy 100 shares at $35 that drop to $5 in a year, you probably wouldn't want to buy 100 DVDs at $35 that drop to $5 in a year.


Fair game if you don't mind the hassle and risk.


It's not corruption, its the nature of collecting of any sort. Whether its comic books or DVDs, buying and selling becomes part of the "sport."


So use Netflix, Redbox, and get VHS tapes or DVDs of expensive Blu-ray Discs. There is no less movie in doing so and it will be far cheaper.


So are you volunteering to fund a 100,000 run and take the hit on copies not sold?


Or conversely, necessary, in the case of some older movies that have a niche audience... Again unless you are a MOD/DVD-R fan.

Take a look at the number of pre-2000 movies Sony owns versus the amount actually released on Blu-ray. The ratio is simply pitiful. Sony obviously is not seeing a clear path to profit on older catalog titles unless they are surefire hits in the market. Therefore it is possible this movie would have seen a subpar release by Sony or no release at all by Sony if Twilight Time did not release it in the fashion that they did.

You can't crucify Twilight Time for trying to build a business model around the movies that they actually have access to. And you can't crucify Sony for not pressing a huge run of discs that mostly won't sell (though you can crucify them for Cinavia ). So, we come to this sort of small pressing arrangement or MOD/DVD-R often as the solution.


They aren't denied a chance to own it. They can buy it from a marketplace site such as eBay or Amazon marketplace, albeit at a potentially higher price. But they won't be denied from a chance of owning it.


If someone wants to blindly pay someone $60-$80 for this disc because they don't want to spend the 2 minutes it would take to search for a lower price, that is that person's perrogative. Generally when I spend that amount of money I take some time to see if I can get a better deal. And if the deal is that hard to find, then that is more about Twilight Time & Screen Archive's marketing problem than the eBay seller's profiteering ethics.


All part of the collector game. Expect to see more things moving this direction and MOD as physical media winds down. Of course, there is always the option of not buying the movie at all, as I will not be buying THE EGYPTIAN from Twilight Time as I feel it is a movie hardly worth $20 nevermind $40. Like most goods, it all boils down to what you want to buy and how much its worth to you

I don't even know how to respond to you. Warner's Archive releases in 2011 sure didn't constitute "1%" of all their catalog content released last year. But, if you think it's "pointless" to bring up Warner and every other studio's primary method for releasing catalog content in 2011, then I can't help you. The issue is how catalog content is being released now by studios and indie labels and forms of distribution they're using -- not how many DVDs Warner released over the last 15 years and what price you can find them in the Walmart bump bin. That point of comparison you made is completely pointless.

I guess laserdisc wasn't a part of your "home video" experience seeing as that format had several limited edition titles, not to mention titles that had small pressing runs -- and also many titles that were exorbitantly expensive...3,4,5 times as expensive as FRIGHT NIGHT!

Back then, us laserdisc owners paid a premium for watching a film in higher quality (and widescreen) because "the masses" were content with VHS. Now we're seeing something similar -- "the masses" like their DVDs of older movies, or they like online streaming. They're content with what they have and aren't turning to Blu-Ray for those titles...so now, BD owners will be paying a bit of a premium for a catalog film like FRIGHT NIGHT. At least it's $30...not $130 (like it was at times back in the days of lasers!).


Even if this sells out, consumers can own the film still on DVD, VHS, watch it on cable, Netflix, wherreever. We're only talking about the Blu-Ray here. The movie's not being locked up in a vault.


It's a free country. If buyers want this disc to watch it, or for speculation, that's their choice. And by this point, any site covering Blu-Ray has written this title up -- so has every message board. I can't imagine too many people really invested in this format live under a technological rock and have not heard or seen, somewhere, that FRIGHT NIGHT is now on Blu-Ray in this type of format.

If they're not interested or the price is too high, that's their call. If the disc does sell out, I'm sure we'll be hearing the whiners complain that they didn't jump in when they could have. If it doesn't, then it just goes to show this format isn't attracting enough interest when it comes to "old" movies (as in, anything made prior to the '90s).


I don't like it either -- but the writing has been on the wall for a long time now. BD catalog discs have slowed down -- that big "explosion" some people expected seeing on Blu never happened -- and as Ruined pointed out how many Sony films from before 2000 have ever been released on Blu-Ray?

Again, I think all of us would prefer having every film ever made being available in Blu-Ray for $10 (again, the entitlement factor seems to be pretty strong around here), but that's obviously never going to happen. But instead of blaming TT, why not blame your fellow consumers for not buying enough old movies when they've been released on Blu-Ray, and for physical media being on the decline in general?

That's the bottom-line reason why the MOD program and limited edition releases have supplanted retail titles from the major studios. It's not "greed," it's simply not enough demand, not enough support for those titles when they were released.

+1

Some just can't understand the concept of the enjoyment of a movie for its own sake: cost, profit, speculative investment, collection obsession or other business principle being something else entirely.

Whilst I may grumble about the price for Fright Night, I paid it because I want to watch the movie. I do not demand all titles be $10, even though I would prefer them to be cheaper than they are. It is my decision to purchase a title or not under the prevailing conditions.

However I do object to movies becoming harder to access by the general public in acceptable quality and at a price that is not artificially inflated.

The "have never been released on Blu-ray" phrase to explain why catalogue titles are not yet out is a straw an argument... There are movies that never made it to DVD or VHS and those have been around much longer as formats.

As to comparing prices to laserdisc from 1980s... Why not compare to the price of owning film? I knew people who bought films and owned projectors before home video... And that cost a lot more money and was far more limited... So why arbitrary comparisons to laserdisc?

People can do what they want... But I hope this isn't the future. 3000 copies times $30 is only $90,000... Cost of replication drops tremendously if you do a run of 100,000 or more... So they are killing their profit margin if they really only made 3000 copies.

It would have been smarter to make the bigger run, don't advertise like a collectible and price this movie at $20 as a new release. A larger company could have made more and gone to $15 but I think $20 is fair for a good transfer of a good movie.

I have said before... Part of the problem is movie studios trying to overprice the market then forced to clearance sale months later... If they priced lower to begin with, more movies would hold their value longer and they could have longer sustained sales at higher margins.

By the time you get to home release, virtually all the money has been spent... The new money is for the transfer/mastering and replication/distribution... Which is small compared to the cost of making the movie in the first place! Home video is a new way to profit from an old movie that otherwise is doing nothing sitting in a vault somewhere.

I don't think it's arbitrary. Laserdisc was the first high quality home video format, so it makes sense to use it as a comparison. Film was never meant as a home video format.


It's hard for me to believe they didn't run such numbers themselves.

I don't think consumers are at fault. I don't think "entitlement" has anything to do with it... it's a two-way street, I don't owe the movie studios a thing. It's either priced at a point where it's worth it to me, or it isn't and I'll spend my time/money elsewhere. When people can get a video game they can play for months for $60, where's the appeal of a less-than-2-hour film for $35? I think the crux of the matter is this: most people have little use for owning movies.

Frankly, I think physical media is a lousy way to buy movies. If the bandwidth/quality was there for downloads, I'd ditch BD in a second.

I just paid $25 for a soundtrack CD. A CD. Not a ebay price either.

You also can't speak for everyone: pretty much everyone has at least ONE or two movies that they own on DVD. A favorite or special film for them, and telling them that they can no longer own that film, that they have to be connected to a data line to see it will upset them.

You talk about "months" for games? These days it's hours. The single player campaigns of most games are a joke now, it's all about multiplayer and if you're not a hardcore gamer forget about competing fairly.


You're obviously a rental person. I like having a library, having all my films at my fingertips. i like being able to freeze-frame certain shots. I like having commentaries and special features. Ignoring quality differences, none of that is available via streaming.

Well, the question is, how many people still feel that way? I've been hearing about the physical market for music is evaporating as well. Convenience and low cost are powerful things. That company that makes that "Angry Birds" game makes obscene amounts of money on their $1 games by passing that psychological threshold...
With Netflix and Redboxes all over the place, many people I know have scaled back their collecting. I think movie studios need to find a better way to make money from that, rather than resist the changing habits of customers.

I promise you, if they sell out of all 3000. Twilight Time or Image will make more.

I believe their track record speaks differently ..

There are any number of examples both in the video as well as audio that have had limited pressings / production .. in most cases, the company would like to sell as many as it can .. after all, the motive of business is profit ..

However, when the market is studied, or the rights owner wants a limitation, or for whatever reason, a limit is sometimes enforced ..

I am personally glad it became available at all ..

+1

There are dozens of catalog titles I'm waiting on. State of Grace, Romeo is Bleeding, rollerball...

So i'm just glad it's out

And you'll pay how much if they don't?

While you're at it, can you find me a copy of the soundtrack to Die Hard? They sold out immediately so they must have made more, right?

Even if it takes five years?

As RobertR mentioned, it's not an arbitrary comparison at all. Laserdisc was the first high-end home video format geared towards home consumers. It sold well but never in huge numbers because most average consumers were content with VHS. I use it as a point of comparison because Blu-Ray -- least when it comes to catalog content -- is facing a similar sort of challenge. The format's quality is better than DVD, but the mass consumer seems unconvinced/disinterested in moving from DVD to Blu-Ray when it comes to catalog content of older films.

BTW laserdisc was alive and kicking well into the '90s, almost the whole decade, before DVDs came about. It was not an exclusively "1980s" format as you mention, it was available nationally and was a much more expensive format than Blu-Ray is. If you add the price of inflation in, those prices are even more exorbitant by comparison.

yup .. and with all the general poo pooing on the thread about price gouging, chest thumping and outrage etc .. the BD is still available ..